Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02593-WJM-KLM
03-26-2013
PANDAW AMERICA, INC., and PAUL G. STRACHAN, Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants, v. GAJENDRA SINGH, conspirator participant individual, and SANJAY SAHAY, conspirator participant individual, Defendants, PANDAW CRUISES INDIA PVT. LTD., EXOTIC JOURNEYS PVT. LTD, conspirator participant entity, EXOTIC HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD, conspirator participant entity, GAJRAJ WILDLIFE RESORTS PVT. LTD, conspirator participant entity, HERITAGE RIVER CRUISES, conspirator participant entity, RAJ SINGH, conspirator participant individual, and VISHNU SINGH SINSINWAR, conspirator participant individual, Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. PANDAW CRUISES PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE, Third-Party Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Telephonic Appearance [Docket No. 80; Filed March 23, 2013] (the "Motion") submitted by Alexander Anolik, counsel for Defendants, Counterclaimants and Third-Party Plaintiffs Pandaw Cruises India Pvt. Ltd., Exotic Journeys Pvt. Ltd., Exotic Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Gajraj Wildlife Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Heritage River Cruises, Raj Singh and Vishnu Singh Sinsinwar.
The Motion also states that it is brought by Adam Anolik but he is not listed on the docket as counsel of record.
Counsel requests that he be allowed to appear telephonically for the Final Pretrial Conference on April 1, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel states that his office is located in Sausalito, California and that appearing in person would impose a significant hardship on him and his clients. Counsel contends that he attempted to confer with Plaintiffs directly but received no response. He claims that since Plaintiffs' previous attorneys withdrew, he was not able to confer with them.
However, counsel fails to acknowledge in the Motion that on September 4, 2012, an attorney entered his appearance on behalf of Plaintiff Pandaw America, Inc. and is currently identified on the docket as the attorney of record for Pandaw America, Inc. See [#73]. Counsel fails to indicate any attempt to confer with the attorney. Thus, having failed to comply with the duty to confer pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#80] is DENIED.